Note that it is explicit association, not implicit.
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time.
I agree. That's all it states. And it is precisely the amorphous and utterly untestable nature of this "simple statement" that renders it unscientific, useless as an exploratory tool, and perfectly adaptable to the theocratic flavor of the day.
I disagree.
First of all, as it now stands, evolution has no theory of abiogenesis, which makes it kind of like a high-rise built without a foundation or the first three floors. Since it has no explanation for how the whole process got started in the first place, are you going to say that evolution does not therefore qualify as science?
Secondly, if I were to find a tablet on the moon with writing on it, would I need to know the name of the alien race which put it there or know which star they hailed from to say that it was the creation of an intellegent being rather than a random accident caused by micro-meteoric impacts and solar wind?
Neither does ID need to name the Designer in order to infer one from the complexity of even "simple" organisms or the mathematical odds of such a thing appearing by chance (which very quickly start to compare to the number of atoms in the universe multiplied by the number of seconds since the estimated time of the big bang).
It's interesting that when a paper proporting ID appeared in the Smithsonian's journal, it was not contested on the actual merits of its content. Rather, the "scientific" establishment pitched a hissy-fit until the Smithsonian apologized for daring to let a paper on ID appear on its pages; nevermind that it had gone through and passed the normal review cycle necessary to become published.
The instant that happened, your side of the debate lost all credibility as the supposed "guardians" of pure science, and became the guardians of a philosophical dogma instead.